Suppr超能文献

用于失眠短期治疗的新型催眠药物:系统评价与经济学评估

Newer hypnotic drugs for the short-term management of insomnia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

作者信息

Dündar Y, Boland A, Strobl J, Dodd S, Haycox A, Bagust A, Bogg J, Dickson R, Walley T

机构信息

Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2004 Jun;8(24):iii-x, 1-125. doi: 10.3310/hta8240.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of zaleplon, zolpidem and zopiclone (Z-drugs) compared with benzodiazepines.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases, reference lists of retrieved articles and pharmaceutical company submissions.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared either benzodiazepines to the Z-drugs or any two of the non-benzodiazepine drugs in patients with insomnia were included in the review. Data on the following outcome measures were considered: sleep onset latency, total sleep duration, number of awakenings, quality of sleep, adverse effects and rebound insomnia. A search was also undertaken for any study designs that evaluated issues related to adverse events (e.g. dependency and withdrawal symptoms). Full economic evaluations that compared two or more options and considered both costs and consequences including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis or cost-benefit analysis undertaken in the context of high-quality RCTs were considered for inclusion in the review.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies, involving a total study population of 3909 patients, met the inclusion criteria. These included 17 studies comparing a Z-drug with a benzodiazepine and seven comparing a Z-drug with another Z-drug. The diversity of possible comparisons and the range of outcome measures in the review may be confusing. Outcomes were rarely standardised and, even when reported, differed in interpretation. In addition, variations in assessment and variety in the level of information provided make study comparisons difficult. As a result, meta-analysis has been possible on only a small number of outcomes. However, some broad conclusions might be reached based on the limited data provided. The existing published economic literature in this area is very limited. No relevant economic evaluations were identified for inclusion in the review. The industry submissions did not include detailed evidence of cost-effectiveness. Given the lack of robust clinical evidence, no economic model describing the costs and benefits of the newer hypnotic drugs for insomnia was developed. The systematic review provided in this report suggests that an agnostic approach to cost-effectiveness is required at this stage. In the short-term, no systematic evidence is available concerning significant outcome variations between either the different classes of drugs or between individual drugs within each class. Within this short-term horizon, the one element that does vary significantly is the acquisition cost of the individual drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-acting drugs seem equally effective and safe with minor differences that may lead a prescriber to favour one over another in different patients. There is no evidence that one is more cost-effective than any other. Analysis of the additional costs to the NHS, depending on the rate of change from benzodiazepine prescriptions to Z-drug prescriptions, at current levels of hypnotic prescribing, range from GBP2 million to GBP17 million per year. There are clear research needs in this area; in particular, none of the existing trials adequately compare these medications. It is suggested that further consideration should be given to a formal trial to allow head-to-head comparison of some of the key drugs in a double-blind RCT lasting at least 2 weeks, and of sufficient size to draw reasonable conclusions. We would also recommend that any such trial should include a placebo arm. It should also collect good-quality data around sleep outcomes and in particular quality of life and daytime drowsiness. We do not believe that any formal study of risk of dependency is feasible at present. Finally, the management of long-term insomnia is suggested for further investigation: considering the frequency of this symptom and its recurring course, the short-term trial of medication and lack of long-term follow-up undermine attempts to develop evidence-based guidelines for the use of hypnotics in this condition, or indeed for its whole management.

摘要

目的

评估扎来普隆、唑吡坦和佐匹克隆(Z 类药物)相较于苯二氮䓬类药物的临床效果和成本效益。

数据来源

电子数据库、检索文章的参考文献列表以及制药公司提交的资料。

综述方法

本综述纳入了比较苯二氮䓬类药物与 Z 类药物,或比较两种非苯二氮䓬类药物治疗失眠患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。考虑了以下结局指标的数据:入睡潜伏期、总睡眠时间、觉醒次数、睡眠质量、不良反应和反弹性失眠。还检索了评估与不良事件相关问题(如依赖性和戒断症状)的任何研究设计。纳入综述的是在高质量 RCT 背景下进行的、比较两种或更多选项并考虑成本和后果(包括成本效益、成本效用分析或成本效益分析)的全面经济评估。

结果

24 项研究符合纳入标准,涉及的研究总人群为 3909 名患者。其中包括 17 项比较一种 Z 类药物与一种苯二氮䓬类药物的研究,以及 7 项比较一种 Z 类药物与另一种 Z 类药物的研究。综述中可能的比较多样性和结局指标范围可能令人困惑。结局很少标准化,即使报告了,在解释上也存在差异。此外,评估的差异和所提供信息水平的多样性使得研究比较困难。因此,仅对少数结局进行了荟萃分析。然而,基于所提供的有限数据可能得出一些大致结论。该领域现有的已发表经济文献非常有限。未发现有相关经济评估可纳入综述。行业提交的资料未包括成本效益的详细证据。鉴于缺乏有力的临床证据,未开发出描述新型失眠催眠药物成本和效益的经济模型。本报告提供的系统综述表明,现阶段需要对成本效益采取不可知论的方法。短期内,没有系统证据表明不同药物类别之间或每类中的个别药物之间存在显著的结局差异。在这个短期范围内显著不同的一个因素是个别药物的购置成本。

结论

短效药物似乎同样有效和安全,细微差异可能导致开处方者在不同患者中更倾向于选择其中一种。没有证据表明一种药物比其他药物更具成本效益。根据从苯二氮䓬类药物处方转换为 Z 类药物处方的变化率,对英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)额外成本的分析表明,按照当前催眠药物处方水平,每年的成本从 200 万英镑到 1700 万英镑不等。该领域显然有研究需求;特别是,现有的试验均未充分比较这些药物。建议进一步考虑进行正式试验,以便在至少为期 2 周的双盲 RCT 中对一些关键药物进行直接比较,试验规模要足够大以便得出合理结论。我们还建议任何此类试验应包括一个安慰剂组。它还应收集关于睡眠结局特别是生活质量和日间嗜睡的高质量数据。我们认为目前对依赖性风险进行任何正式研究都不可行。最后,建议对长期失眠的管理进行进一步研究:考虑到这种症状的频率及其复发过程,药物的短期试验以及缺乏长期随访破坏了为这种情况下使用催眠药物制定循证指南或对其整体管理的努力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验